Consider the compact of co-responsibility between the government and recipients. What is needed to make the compact work?
With any agreement, there needs to be trust and mutual understanding about what is required from all parties involved in the agreement. It is necessary for the expectations to be very clear as not to cause any confusion. In the case of Progresa, the government may have financially given rewards to those who participated in the program, but they only gave these financial rewards if the participants fulfilled all the necessary requirements. The Center for Global Development (CGDEV, n.d.) stated “Cash transfers were given if every member of the family accepted preventative health services…In the nutrition component the cash transfer was given if children aged 5 years and under and breast-feeding mothers attended nutrition monitoring clinics” (p.4). This statement clearly demonstrates some of the necessary requirements the government made. If the recipients met these requirements, and the other requirements required by Progresa, then the recipients were given the cash value included in the deal.
Progresa demonstrates the effectiveness of co-responsibility between the government and citizens. Instead of simply providing free services (such as immunizations), Progresa offered cash transfers for those who participated as an incentive. Therefore, the government required the recipients to also take responsibility in this agreement. The recipients had to trust the government would pay them in order to make this agreement work. Also, the government had to have a solid plan and clear requirements of what was expected from the participants.
Why were the cash grants given to mothers? Do you think this was a good idea or a bad one? What might have been the positive and negative consequences of this choice?
The cash grants were given to mothers based on prior social scienceresearch (CGDEV, n.d.). This prior research “has shown that mothers in developing countries are more likely than fathers to spend additional household resources on children’s health and welfare, rather than on consumption good” (CGDEV, n.d., p.4). The creators of Progresa hoped that by giving the money to the fathers, the health of the children would also be positively affected by the financial rewards of participating in the program.
Overall, I understand why those who created Progresa decided to give the money to the mothers. Prior social science had shown that by giving money to the mothers, the money was more likely to be spent on the child than if they money was given to the father. Judging by the positive results of the study, it does seem this was a good idea. On the positive side, money was being given to those who prior studies had shown were usually responsible with money in regards to the children. However, one could argue negative consequences from this choice.
An example of a negative consequence from this choice would be by emphasizing the role of the mother, the government was in a way deemphasizing the importance of the father’s role in parenting. Also, some could argue the program is suggesting men are not capable of being resourceful and responsible with money. Perhaps cultural norms and prior research has shown these facts to be true but obviously this is not true in every situation. It is important to remember there are cases were the mother is not always the most responsible parent and may not always put the health of her children first. In these cases, the mother getting the financial rewards from the program would not necessarily be the best choice. Perhaps, in these situations, the government would be best to evaluate the situation on a case to case basis.
Progresa established a type of entitlement program that now accounts for a relatively large share of the government's expenditures. What are the factors that designers should have taken into consideration regarding the sustainability of the program over time?
When creating this program, the designer should have taken into account who would most likely participate in the program and how the program would grow over time. The amount of participants in the program from day one, and the cost of initially starting and running the program, should have been evaluated as well as the long term projected cost. Initiating the program, but not being able to sustain the program over time, would not lead to any significant long term success.
In order to make the programsustainable, the program needed to show success. The research has shown that thus far, the program has been successful. The success of all the children who have been affected by the program cannot truly even be financially measured. By encouraging education and preventative medicine, thousands of lives have been affected. Although the rewards of the preventative aspect of the program cannot always be measured, there are some preventative measures which have been measured. For example, CGDEV (n.d.) stated “adult beneficiaries of Progresa between 19 and 50 had 19 percent fewer days of difficulty with daily activities due to illness than their non-Progresa counterparts” (p.7). This statement shows how effective this program can be. Although it is not stated in the research, one could safely assume that by having 19 percent fewer days of difficulty, these people were also more able to work and thus lead to being more effective and productive in society and the economy. This is a great example of benefits which are not always factored into the financial effects of a program but help the program remain sustainable and effective.
What are the preconditions for a successful conditional cash transfer program?
A successful conditional cash transfer program must clearly state the expectations of both parties involved. For example, in the case of Progresa, it was clear what was required in the different components, such as the nutrition components and the education components. If, and only if, theserequirements were met, would the cash be transferred.
For a cash transfer program to be successful, there must also be a clearly defined recipient of the money. In the case of Progresa, the adult women were given the money. There must also be a clearly defined way to transfer the money, such as the recipient coming to a defined government location to get the money or a transfer to a bank account. Obviously, this transfer would have to be determined based on the country and availability of resources, such as location of banks and the affordability of the participants being able to travel to a central government site to get the money.
Overall, a successful conditional cash transfer program must not only evaluate the country as a whole, but also the participants. For example, in Mexico the poverty stricken people were evaluated to see what changes would be most beneficial to promotefinancial rewards for. Perhaps in other country, nutritional education would not be as beneficial to promote as it was Mexico but another need instead is clearly needing intervention. Every group of people must be evaluated, before initiating programs there, to understand the needs.
Center for Global Development. (n.d). Improving the health of the poor in Mexico. Retrieved from